House Education Committee Part 1
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (10)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1435
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1435”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1433
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1433”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1772
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1772”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1819
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1819”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1937
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1937”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2032
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2032”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2050
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2050”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2125
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2125”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB648
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB648”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB892
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB892”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
Like I say, first thing, remind you that, and the audience also, we
will probably very good, strong possibility we'll have a meeting this afternoon. That time will be announced during session of the house this afternoon, I'm guessing around 3 or 3.30. We will dismiss house, recess the house, I guess, come back, spend about an hour here looking at some more bills, and then we'll go
back into session. but the time will be announced during the house session
this afternoon we'd like to recognize pages this morning we have four lovely young ladies and a lovely young man with us today and we're just glad they're senate pages we like house pages but we like senate pages too but we're glad to have you all with us and you're taking a day of your spring break I understand to learn
all about government and how it works in Arkansas.
Seeing nothing else, committee, we've got a special order this morning, House Bill 1435, Representative King, and I think he has an amendment, and he also has a co-sponsor down there with him. It's grinning at us, but... we'll introduce him in a minute but we'll have an amendment we're going to pass out take a moment look
Speaker 9
1:29
at that then I'll accept a motion on that amendment
I have a motion to adopt the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, like signed. The
ayes have it. The amendment has been passed. Ms. King, you're recognized to present your bill, House Bill 1435. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, House
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
2:50
Bill 1435. Let me tell you a little bit of how I came on board with this issue, was that Eureka
Springs is in my school district, and we originally – they contacted me when the state made the determination that this was a state tax, which I don't think we disagree with. The part was that we disagreed with was that that money should be remitted back to the school district that it originated from. And I want to say that, you know, there's parts of the law that say that, and I know Representative Western may be addressing this earlier, and we may have an attorney that can testify to that, too.
Let me say first, the reason Eureka Springs is in this situation is because of a special economic circumstance. They are typically a smaller school, but they have the economic circumstance that they have a retirement community in their district. So you have a little higher tax collections out of that with no kids in the school district. Had they had a situation where they had a timber mill plan or a poultry plan or any type of regular manufacturing situation there that would have kids in the district,
they wouldn't be in this situation. So it's really of no fault on their own that they happen to be in a district that collects, their 25 mills collects more than the foundation-level funding. And let me tell you, after I took that position, And I have four schools in my district, Eureka Springs, Bearville, Green Forest, and Alpena. And when I took the position that Eureka should be able to keep this money, I got a lot of flack from some of the school board members in Bearville and Green Forest
about why would I take that position. And let me remind you that my wife is on the Bearville School Board and my brother is on the Green Forest School Board. And let me remind you that politically, I get about 65 percent of the vote in Berryville and about 75 percent of the vote in Green Forest and about 25 percent of the vote in Eureka Springs. So politically, it wasn't very smart. And my brother asked me why I was taking that position to help them, and I said I believe it was the right thing to do then,
and I believe it's the right thing to do now to stick up for that district. And he said, well, it probably still won't matter politically whether you win for them or not because, Brian, you'd probably have a better chance of winning a Brad Pitt look-alot contest than winning an election in Eureka Springs. So I wanted to say that I had to address this issue that I'm asking you to address for the schools in your district. I had to address that in my own district and take the position and convince them. And what I found troubling to me was kind of the class warfare rhetoric that went around
and how to address that, that this was a rich school district and that, you know, they should be able to – they should be giving the money back. And then I first said, well, you know, two years ago this wasn't a problem because the state wasn't requiring them to remit the money – they weren't keeping the money over the foundation-level funding. And at that time, we had a very balanced system, I believe, because Eureka, at the same time that their 25 mills brought over and above the foundation-level funding,
at that same time, they were receiving zero state dollars to get up to the foundation-level funding. They were receiving zero dollars for facilities. So at the same time, if you're building a million-dollar building in Berryville or Green Forest, you know, somewhere between 50% and 60% of those tax dollars to help build that building was coming from people that pay taxes outside the district. So they were actually receiving help. So while Eureka had some advantages, no doubt, they also received zero money in facilities and zero money in state aid getting up to the foundation-level funding.
While at the same time, a lot of that, you know, taxpayers helped fund those other projects in other districts that that could not receive the foundation level funding let me address some of the misconceptions that were out there originally because I had to address each one of those number one will this affect one of the things that was put out there was that that this will will affect other school districts and foundation level funding well that's not true no school district in this state
whether this bill passes or it fails will receive one dollar more one dollar less two years ago all this money was remitted back to the districts that are affected by this and you know what every school then received the same level of state foundation level funding so this will not affect foundation level funding the second thing is and mr chairman can i pass
this out for everybody to look at and And I'll make my point. The staff will come pick it up,
Mr. King, and pass it out for you. Okay.
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
7:49
Let me go on to the next point while he's passing that out, and I'll come back to this other misconception. The other part is about it's unconstitutional. And I know that we've got some attorneys here that's going to testify that this is unconstitutional. But I can tell you that there's language in the law that would make someone think that that's not possible. Now, I know the AG has his opinion, and the governor has his opinion on it. But we also have his attorneys that have another opinion. And I'm asking you on the unconstitutional part, don't let that decision affect your decision on this, because we're policymakers.
And the courts, this, from all I understand, is going to go to court. Let's let the courts decide the constitutionality of it. I respect Governor Beebe very much, and through the discussions, that I've had with him, and he has been very, very good. Now, I've been critical of the governor, as many of you know, but I'm going to brag on the governor. He has worked very hard with us meeting and trying to work out this situation. I mean, I'm going to give him credit. And let me tell you something else. You've never heard Brian King criticize the governor on his work on education issues.
I mean, he has worked very hard through Lakeview, as we know, and I've become very much more educated about the process of what has happened in education in Arkansas through discussions with him. though I disagree with him on this issue. I can brag on him about the work that he has done and the work that he
has tried to do for these districts in limiting what he believes. He's still tried to work very hard on helping these districts. But I
want you to look, if you've got the handout, this is where, and this is from when it comes to the Department of Education.
This is from low to high that shows how much the local general revenue is and how much the state funding brings them up. You can see the number one or the low to high school still receives the foundation level funding. If you go to the back page, because one of the misconceptions I had to address was, if we allow this to continue to happen, that all of a sudden it's going to throw all these other schools into this problem. So I went back and asked the Department of Education to give me the information about this.
If you look on the last page, there's virtually only maybe other two schools that could be close enough to be in this situation to go over and above the foundation-level funding. If you go up to Center Ridge, Fayetteville and Washington County, Gravitt and Benton County, Russellville, what I would think, and I could be wrong, what would happen there to go over the 25 mills is they would have to lose probably several hundred students at the same time keeping their tax collection the same. So, you know, the misconception was at that time that got out
there was this is going to become a larger problem
and it's going to be widespread. You know, I think if you can look at the statistics, you can see that it's very possible that it's not going to do that. As I addressed, the unconstitutional part, it's much like the health care decision that some take, and a lot of people in this room, and I'm not speaking for the governor, or my interpretation of the governor in the health care debate was that Washington, D.C. was policymakers. They made the health care law based on policy and got the votes to make that happen. Now, I disagreed with that, but they wound up making the policy up there.
Okay, we today, I'm asking you to decide, we are policymakers, and I want you to look at the balanced system and say, you know, hey, this is good policy to keep it like it was two years ago, And let's let the courts decide whether this is constitutional or not. Like I said, I want to remind you, we are policymakers. Let's let the courts decide that, and you're going to hear some very good testimony about why they think it's unconstitutional. You know what? We also have an opinion. These schools and everybody involved are not going to court just to take a last-ditch chance.
I can tell you, I feel like Representative Westerman and I have visited with enough attorneys. I feel like I've went to law school. But I'm going to tell you, let's let the courts decide whether this is constitutional or not. Is our funding system perfect? No, it's not. But it's a very good system. As I've discussed with the governor in past people in a lot of years in education, this is a much better system today than it was in the past. And I agree with that. I am all for, even though this school district pays a lot more in taxes, okay, in individuals,
I'm for that being used when it comes to general revenue to supplement the schools in your district and in my district that gets them up the foundation level funding this education system funding wise is far better than it was than in years past and I think there's a lot of people that would agree with it but what I'm asking you to do is look at go back the way it was two years ago when this policy was that this money was remitted back to the districts this is not this was not something that wasn't new this was
only happened this past year let's don't let things get out of balance okay because
you think it's a wealthy school district and they have some perks they
also have disadvantages to that some people need to know the school districts in my district that I've had to go explain to you that receives down to foundation level funding about why do I take the position to help them you know what but they get help on their school buildings. You know, I'm asking you to go back to the system that we had that was in place and the policy that was implemented then, and let's keep it good for all schools and have good policy.
Mr. Chairman, if you don't care, Representative Westerman would like to
have some comments. I would love for him to have a few comments here. Unify yourself with the record,
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
13:36
please. Bruce Westerman, State Representative. You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Committee. In full disclosure, I must tell you that I have grandparents that went to Fountain Lake School, my mother, who is in the room today, so please be nice to me, my father, my two brothers, and myself all graduated from Fountain Lake High School.
I have four children that attend school there, and this time last year I was president of the Board of Education there. So I definitely have a personal vested interest in this bill. You know, if I think about the story of Esther in the Bible, who knows, maybe I'm sitting here today for such a time as this. But I want to set all of that aside, and I don't want to talk about my own personal interests, but I want to talk about what's right and what's wrong.
And as I've delved into this issue, I keep coming up with questions that I can't get answers for. So as I make a presentation here today, I want to share some of these questions with you. And the first one is, what did voters approve back in 1996 when Amendment 74 was passed that established the URT? And I've given some handouts up at the front table. I'll go ahead and read this, but you've got a copy first of the proposed constitutional amendment from 1996.
And if you look down at item 3, it says the uniform rate of tax shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as other school property taxes, but the net revenues from the uniform rate of tax shall be remitted to the state treasurer and distributed by the state to the school districts as provided by law. No portion of the revenues from the uniform rate of tax shall be retained by the state. The revenues so distributed shall be used by the school districts solely for maintenance and operation of schools.
That's what the voters saw when they voted on this. You may remember voting on it back in the late 90s. So what does the Constitution say about the uniform rate of tax? It says exactly what the ballot said. It says, The uniform rate of tax shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as other school property taxes, but the net revenues from the uniform rate of tax shall be remitted to the state treasurer and distributed by the state to the school districts as provided by law.
No portion of the revenues from the uniform rate of tax shall be retained by the state. The revenue so distributed shall be used by the school districts solely for maintenance and operation of the schools. That's what the Constitution says. And I want to point out a phrase in there where it says the uniform rate of tax shall be remitted to the state treasurer and distributed by the state to the school districts as provided by law. So that leads to the next question is what does the law say? And I remind you, as Representative King did, that we are lawmakers.
And the Constitution gives us the authority to decide how this money is distributed back. And if you look at the Arkansas Code 26-80-101, the title of the code is the Uniform Rate of Tax. Item A says there is established a uniform rate of ad valorem property tax of 25 mils to be levied on the assessed value of all taxable real property, personal property, and utility property in the state to be used solely by school districts to which it may be distributed
according to law for maintenance and operation of the schools. If you move down to B, it says no portion of the revenues from the uniform rate of tax shall be retained by the state but shall be distributed back to the school district from which the revenues were received or to other school districts pursuant to subsection C of this section. If you turn the page and look at subsection C, it's real short and sweet. It says, for each school year, each county treasurer shall remit the net revenues from the uniform rate of tax to each local school district from which the revenues were derived.
That sounds pretty clear to me. In fact, this is exactly what has happened the last four years as the taxpayers have paid more local property taxes in these four schools than the adequacy funding amount. and they have been allowed to keep the local property taxes local. I've got a question I want to ask you today. Do you want to be an accomplice with the Department of Education for the first time in our state's history in taking locally generated school taxes from the district in which they were collected
and spending the money somewhere else for who knows what purpose? Which leads to my next question. Where will this money go, and who will benefit if it's taken from the schools? And I've asked a lot of people this question, and I've yet to get an answer. Maybe somebody today can answer that. I've asked it to numerous people in the ADA. I've asked others as well, or not the ADA, but the ADE. Every school is already guaranteed to get the adequacy funding amount of $6,023 per student,
and regardless of the outcome of this legislation, no school will get one cent less, and no school will get one cent more. I don't know if the ADA has plans to expand their department or what their intent may be. I cannot tell you who will benefit from the ADA's actions, but I can promise you that 2,812 Arkansas school children, 261 certified teachers and administrators, and 181 classified support staff that are associated with these four schools
will suffer as over 10% of their school's budgets will be taken away. Not only will the schools suffer, but the local economies where these dollars are spent will suffer as well. The biggest stretch that can be made about where these funds will go is to other schools, which would only offset general revenue that is already going to these schools. You can twist words with legal arguments, but the bottom line is that if these funds leave these schools, they are going to replace general revenue, which is directly in opposition to what the
voters of this state voted on, directly in opposition to the Constitution, directly in opposition to the legislation implementing the constitutional amendment, and directly in opposition to the current code. I believe that if the ADE succeeds in their plans, that a bad message will be sent to schools across the state, that the ADE can make up the rules as they go, and they can take local school property taxes to offset general revenues. I believe the ADE's actions will make it extremely difficult for districts to pass
local bond issues, and it will only heighten the tensions and distrust between local schools and the Arkansas Department of Education. I believe that as a committee, you have a choice today to stand up for local schools and taxpayers, or to promote big government, bureaucracy, and the socialistic language of the Attorney General's Robin Hood opinion that directs the ADE to, I quote, redistribute this excess to whatever districts it considers in need of
additional funding. Thank you and I'll take any questions. Thank you for comments.
Ms. Clemmer will have you
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
21:13
have a question? Mr. Westerman or Mr. King, what would prevent a school district from voting to reduce, I mean, if you're well-financed by your If your school district, well-financed by your local area, if we didn't pass this bill, would there be motivation for school districts to lower their tax rate?
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
21:37
Representative Clemmer, Amendment 74 says that all schools must levy the uniform rate of tax, which is 25 mils. And this money is contained in the 25 mils. So you could put it on the ballot in the district and lower the millage to the minimum required 25 mills, and the state would still take what they're calling excess money from those districts. So the voters have no recourse on this.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
22:02
But a school district, if they were above the required millage, could put on the ballot.
I mean, why wouldn't they just go ahead and say, why would we pay more? Why would we
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
22:16
pay more than the minimum? Help me understand. Well, your first 25 mills are for maintenance and operations. Right. You can approve millage above 25 for additional maintenance and operations, but typically the millage above that is for dedicated bond service. So if you want to build a building, you pass a bond issue, and you have dedicated mills that are dedicated to that
bond issue, that you can't lower those mills until you pay the bond off because they're...
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
22:43
Well, then by extension, it would just be more
difficult to pass an increase if you didn't think you could use this increase in your school
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
22:57
district. Is that what you just said? Right. And in my school district, the millage rate is almost 35 mils. The amount the department's asking for is four mils, equivalent to four mils. So my taxpayers back home are faced with the state taking four meals out of the district,
and I still don't know what they're going to use
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
23:23
it for. Thank you. I may have
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
23:25
another question later, Mr. Chairman. Let me answer that. You know, Eureka Springs, like I
said, receives zero money for facilities. They passed a millage to build a new high school back in September. Before this decision was clear, and let me remind you, The Department of Education requested the AG opinion back in the summer. They received it in October. They waited a month and didn't notify these schools until November,
so about owing the $800,000. Let me tell you, the big consequence in this thing, if you're thinking about the kids, if this decision does not go back to the way it was a couple years ago, last year and the year before, the big consequence is these schools will never pass another millage. They won't. So, you know, when it comes down to policy, like I said, they're going to talk about the constitutionality of it, and that's the courts to decide. But policy-wise, the consequence to this is that if we don't go back the way it was
a year ago or two years ago, these schools will never pass another
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
24:36
millage. Committee, any other questions? Mr. Brown. Reverend McKean, you mentioned lawsuits or courts in your testimony. Has the school districts, have they filed any lawsuits yet? I think
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
24:49
they're going to testify later, but my
understanding is there will be a lawsuit.
You know, as we continue to say, and you'll hear, well, if you make this decision, it's going to throw us in the lawsuit. Folks, it's going to go to court anyway, but let's let the courts decide that. But
as far as the policy, like I said before, if we don't change the policy
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
25:10
back, these schools will not pass another millage. It's going to have consequences. All right. One other question, then. Has the Department of Education offered the school districts
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
25:21
any method of payback? They have, and I'll let the school districts, they are basically not the governor, who
I'll brag on about working and meeting with us.
We may disagree on the decision, but I'm going to brag on the governor for meeting with us and trying to work on this situation within the limits that he believes. And I respect that. But they've offered to not have any payments this year. But, folks, it's just kicking the can down the road. I mean, it's just next year they're going to have to pay the full amount. I mean, it will not be a permanent solution. And let me remind you, it could possibly – they're going to have to make deep cuts to their budgets and their curriculum. them. And it could possibly, and I'll let them testify, that, you know, it could possibly lead
them to physical distress. Right now, Armorell, which I'm, Department of Education may testify why, but they are currently in physical distress. That may have been other decisions that put them there. I'll let them say that. But Armorell, and the reason they're in this is because of Nucor steel plant in Mississippi County. But, you know, it's going to have ramifications, very serious complications if we don't go back the way it was a year or two ago.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
26:36
Deputy Hutcherson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember when Eureka Springs voted not to have a football team because they wanted to save money. Are they still just have a basketball team and
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
26:52
they don't have a football team? They do not have a football team but i'll let the people
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
27:01
of hard to find a flat place but they are saving money by uh and i know eureka springs isn't spending their money um foolishly
at all um i guess my question is as we have businesses which we are praying will come to Arkansas, if it puts these school districts in a category where they're going to be losing their school taxes and their school income, it seems like that would discourage businesses from coming in because they know that the school district may be hurt and their children,
they'll be attending that school, will lose some of the income that the school gets. So it's sort of a win-lose situation. You beg for someone to come to the city, but then that income will put them into a packet. Well,
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
27:54
that's true. None of us want to – we all want to take the consequences of those economic opportunities if
they come, and the consequences come after that. But I can tell you that if this happened in your school districts and you have an economic circumstance that throws you into –
Special category, I know Representative Steele, well, you're north of Little Rock, I believe, but Little
Rock, you know, facilities does not get that much money. I mean, so, you know, it's all very well when it's somebody else's money that you're deciding with. And like I said, the decision I'm asking you to make and the policy I'm asking you to implement is the same thing that I had to do in my own district and explain my position about why a year ago, two years ago, policy-wise, we had a very balanced system. It wasn't perfect, but it worked.
Committee, any other questions? If not, we'll go to the audience at this time. And
we have several signed up to speak for and against this bill. And first, we have for, against, I mean, Scott Richardson, Attorney General's office. Mr. King, will you and Mr. Westman just slide over
there and have a seat against the wall somewhere? Put your back to the wall.
Speaker 77
29:16
Good morning. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office. Many of you I've met and talked with before. I'm the lead litigator in the Attorney General's Office on educational issues. When General McDaniel came into office in 2007, he assigned Matt McCoy and I the responsibility of dealing with the Lakeview litigation that was still pending then. And we worked with the General Assembly, and it's good, strong efforts to guide the state out of court
into a constitutional educational funding system and return the control of that funding system back to this body, the General Assembly, and out from underneath court supervision. I also work on the Little Rock desegregation case and other education funding cases that have come up, including cases that have dealt with the uniform rate of tax and how that money is used by the state to fund education.
I think in order to understand Representative King's bill and how it sort of turns back the clock on us beyond the year that he spoke about. I think you have to go back to the 70s and 80s and understand a little bit about how education was funded back then. We had, and many of you have been in education long enough to remember those times. We had the base local revenue per student, which assumed a local revenue, a certain amount
of millage for each school district, and then the state added money to that to fund education. That was challenged in the 80s and went up to the Supreme Court in 1983 in the Dupree versus Alma case, which was our first big school funding case. And the allegation was that the way the state funded education allowed school districts with a strong local property tax base to generate funds in excess of other districts so that
That equality wasn't maintained in the funding of education. And the Supreme Court in Dupree, I apologize, I'm going to read to you a little bit today. The Supreme Court in Dupree said, we can find no legitimate state purpose to support the system. It bears no rational relationship to the education needs of the individual districts. Rather, it is determined primarily by the tax base of each district. The trial court found the educational opportunity of the children in this state should not be controlled by the fortuitous circumstance of residents and we concur
in that view such a system only promotes greater opportunities for the advantage while diminishing the opportunities for the disadvantaged so from Dupree we get the principle that education funding decisions must be based on educational need if the state is going to increase state funding to a particular district it must be based on educational need and cannot be based on the local property wealth of the district unfortunately the situation wasn't remedied after Dupree and you have the Lakeview litigation that came
up and built on that situation although Lakeview in the midst of Lakeview amendment 74 gets passed for the purpose of requiring all districts to levy a a uniform rate of tax of 25 mills so that you don't have a situation of a varying amount of millage rates in the different districts that advantages some districts and disadvantages others.
And in 2002, I see Mr. Sayers in the room. He helped bring the first portion of the Lakeview case which dealt with this equity issue. Is the state funding education on an equitable basis so that every student in the state has an equitable opportunity for an adequate education? And the Supreme Court in Lakeview in 2002, drawing on the Dupree decision, said again,
and with specific reference to Amendment 74, that Amendment 74 does not authorize a system of school funding that fails to close the gap between wealthy school districts, property wealthy school districts, and school districts with low local property wealth. And so the principle that guided the decisions of this body in 2003 that set up the current education funding system that we have was that funding must be equitable.
We must provide the same amount of state funding per student to every student in the state. We can't have a system that offers a bonus to certain students just because they live in a district that happens to generate more revenue off of millages than other districts. So you have the foundation funding system that gets put in place, and you're all familiar with that. That provides a base level of funding per student for every student in the state. And there's two revenue sources that are used by the state to meet that foundation funding
amount. There's the uniform rate of tax, and then there's general revenue, and we call it foundation funding aid, and there's a formula for deriving that that depends on the uniform rate of tax. I think it was suggested earlier that our opinions on the matter that General McDaniel might be a socialist. It's the first I think I've ever heard that accusation. Our opinions are based on these decisions, and it's a very serious matter. In the 2002 Lakeview case, it was clearly set out that if this body is going to authorize additional state funding to a particular district,
it must be based on educational need. It cannot be based on local property wealth. And that is a theme that is carried throughout the Supreme Court decisions. Just as recently as, I believe it's 2006, Mr. Llewellyn and I litigated a case, Fort Smith School District v. Beebe. And that was over how the state utilized the uniform rate of tax and whether or not the
state was required to keep the uniform rate of tax at the local school districts and how that mix of URT and foundation funding was used to fund education. And the Supreme Court noted in that case that the result urged by the school district that sued the state would directly tie the adequacy amount to property wealth in a state. And they said the court has decreed that the state of Arkansas must provide the children
of this state with an adequate and substantially equal education. They cite to the Lakeview cases. And they say we've expressly stated that while Amendment 74 does authorize funding variances, it doesn't authorize a system where funding is increased in a particular school district based on that local property wealth. What Representative King and Representative Westerman have presented here today is a bill that would allow certain school districts to have additional URT revenue, which is state
money, state funding, based solely upon the local wealth of the district. And as we've spoken with Representative King and Representative Westerman, we understand their concerns we respect their position on this but we've explained to them as well based on the Supreme Court efficient opinions there really is no other position for our office other than to affirm what the Supreme Court has already said is that such a system would violate the Constitution as explained by
the court that we must provide equitable funding and we can't provide funding based on local property wealth. Thanks, sir. Ms. Nixon, I think you had
your hand up a minute ago, and I missed you, I think. Thank you,
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
38:00
Mr. Chairman. I have a motion. I'll see your motion. To limit debate for 15 minutes on the side, just five minutes for closing. Proper motion. Any discussion? Ms. Clemmer.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
38:14
Yes, sir. We've had people that have driven in from quite a ways away,
and I think we need to give them their day here before us. So I
would oppose that. Okay. Ms. Clemmer, we've got six people, three far, three
against, signed up. So do you think that will be adequate time? You're saying give them
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
38:37
five minutes apiece? What was the time limit? My motion was
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
38:44
for 15 minutes on the side with five minutes for closing.
I'd give them five minutes each if they watch their watch. I
Speaker 49
38:54
think that's a little brief, but that's
my opinion. Okay. Committee, we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Do the ayes have it? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. We appreciate your... If I can
Speaker 77
39:09
make one more point. Quick. Sorry. Yeah, I'll be quick. There was some discussion about the different millage rates, and as the committee should understand, there are different millage rates that apply in the district. Bond millages are treated differently from URT millage. And
the district is also able to raise excess millages beyond the 25 mil URT, which is a different millage that that district gets to keep. The URT is a separate state tax. It's a state millage that's used as state revenue to fund education. So when we get into talking about different millage rates we're actually talking about very different things okay thank you thank you for your time questions
just would you accept questions yeah absolutely absolutely now this is
going to be part of your time yours
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
40:00
on your side represent Hutchinson thank you mr. chairman you said that we have to fund by
educational need yes ma'am is that why we fund schools that are failing give them more money than we do schools that are accomplishing the education goals right that's
Speaker 77
40:20
why we have categorical funding like the NSLA funding that goes that provides additional funding to schools
that have a high number of poverty students because the special challenges those students have when they come to school so we provide additional funding because there's an educational
Speaker 79
40:36
need there and that that justifies that decision has been approved by the Supreme
Court thank you thank you thank you for your testimony next we have signed up to speak for the Bill? Darren Beckwith? Is that
correct? Okay. Would you have a sleep please identify yourself
for the record? The mic, is the mic, a little green light on your mic
Speaker 107
41:21
there in front of you? Okay, you need some assistance. Yes, sir. Okay. I'm Darren Beckwith, superintendent at Foundlake Schools, and thanks for the opportunity this morning, Mr. Chairman, and the committee. And if you will, I've got Bob McCleskey, who's president of my school board, and this is Wayne Carr with Eureka Springs School District Superintendent.
The thing I want to come to you with, first and foremost, is just the common sense approach and the effect it would have on our district. As they said earlier, you know, he mentioned bonuses for kids. I don't see it as being a bonus. I've been at Foundl Lake for four years. We've had roughly almost 11 million in facilities that we've had to build. Our kids went for many, many years without facilities. I know one of the big things with the ADE is the safe, warm, and dry,
and we got virtually no assistance. We got no assistance from the department where we don't get any foundation funding. We get absolutely no funding when it comes to helping build these facilities to get our kids up to speed. The other things that we spend our money on are the academic end of it. We've been able to do some interim testing, and the data has proven to be very beneficial to our district. It's allowed us to identify the strengths and weaknesses, and, you know, they're not where we want them to be by any means.
But, you know, in the time that I've been there, our test scores continue to grow up because of these kinds of programs that we've been able to initiate in our district. And, again, I think as we look down the road, as far as it's been said earlier this morning, the future as far as, you know, future millage campaigns, it's plain and simple. It's common sense. Folks aren't going to want to raise a millage knowing that their money is not going to stay at home. And where we are right now, if I had to go out and build another building,
what kind of success rate do you think I would have having to give back $1.4 million and then turn around and ask our taxpayers to raise the millage? That, even to a simpleton like me, doesn't make sense. But what I'm asking, again, is to support this because, again, the money that we have, I feel like we've been great stewards of the money, and we're trying to make it a better school. We talk about being a wealthy district, but we have 54% of our kids that are free and reduced,
so it's not like the families in there are wealthy families. Again, we're much in the same situation as Wayne here in that we have a retirement community in our district and, again, not a lot of school-aged kids. So, therefore, with our low number of kids and the assessment of some of the homes in the Hot Springs Village is the reason where we are today. And again, taking this money and paying it back just would be very detrimental to our district, even
to the degree within two years as we project our budgets and what have you of placing us on fiscal distress. So again, I just ask today that you think about the fairness
and the common sense of what this bill provides. Thank you, sir. Would you like to make additional
Speaker 113
44:35
comments, sir? Identify yourself first, and then you may proceed. Wayne Carr, Superintendent of Eureka Springs Schools. Thank you for the time. I'm asking this committee to approve House Bill 1435 so that local school taxes can remain local
and the money not be sent to Little Rock to use for whatever purpose. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very important issue today. It has very far-reaching consequences. I know voters all across Arkansas pass millages for schools every year, and I really believe that the assumption is when they do that, this money would stay in that local school district to be used for their students and not be sent to Little Rock to be used for other purposes.
Think about this. If the AG's opinion is allowed to stand for these four school districts, folks will never be able to pass a millage again. Our patrons will not vote to send money to Little Rock when it needs to be used for their students. So that's a far-reaching consequence. Eureka Springs Schools, 14 years ago, bank account was almost zero. Our very generous patrons voted to increase their millage, to tax themselves, to build a new middle school, and to fund the operations of that school.
Again, under belief that the money that they are willing to pay, their very generous patrons, would be used for our school district and not be sent to Little Rock. Now, at this time, our school district patrons feel betrayed. They feel outraged. The money that they assume was staying in our district to fund our schools is now being sent to Little Rock or it's being asked to send to Little Rock to fund I'm not sure what. It's like Representative Westman cannot get an answer to that question, what will the money be spent for?
You talk about wealth index, they say we're a wealthy school. Most of our patrons are retired individuals living on fixed incomes. And folks, 77% of our elementary students receive free and reduced lunches. That is not a wealthy district. And now this district in the past few years has fully funded the operations of that school. We don't get any facilities money. We don't get any extra money to fund our district.
And now what the ADE is saying, if you have any money left over, you have to send it to Little Rock for whatever purpose that is. Again, this attorney general's opinion came out October 18th. I received a call on November 18th, fully a month later, saying that we owed the ADE $824,000 due in payable in June of this year. That's quite a blow. As most of you know, we signed contracts with our staff in April.
July 1 starts a new fiscal year. What can we do at that late date to change our budget? Very little, if anything. There's not much we can do. But when I first got this phone call talking about we owed $824,000, I kind of do a little math in my head, $824,000 this year, $824,000 next year, and this school district is bankrupt. Folks, we're not a wealthy district. Right now, these four wealthy districts, so-called wealthy districts, that have been identified to send money to the state, one of them is in physical distress.
and last week the ADE is recommending another district be placed in physical stress one of these four districts two of the four going into physical distress in two years if something doesn't change you're talking about four wealthy districts so-called wealthy districts going into physical distress I ask you to think about this it's very important issue keep local school taxes local Thank you. Thanks, sir. Sir,
would you like to make comments also?
Yes, I would. Okay. Would you
Bob Mccleskey
Unverified
48:43
recognize yourself at the record? Yes. My name is Bob McCleskey. I am the president of the Fountain Lake School Board. I'm a 15-year resident of Arkansas, and I'd like to acknowledge or preface my remarks by acknowledging that, in spite of the difference we have with the Arkansas Department of Education, I have believed and told many people that as a state, Arkansas has one of the best structures for funding education and does so in a considerably higher level than most states.
Anyone who reviews the state budgets can only conclude that it's committed to supporting education at all levels from case through university level. Senate Bill 211 in the current legislature defines the proposed level of support, which is truly impressive, a total of $2.65 billion, which amounts to more than 60% of the state tax revenue.
I would like to point out the very first item in the proposed budget is $34.5 million for the 98% URT actual collection adjustment, which is one of the things that is grossly misunderstood and being abused by the Department of Education. The largest single-budget line item is $1.858 billion for state foundation funding.
What do I hope to accomplish today? First, I want to support the enactment of House Bill 1435 because it will stop the ADE's implementation of a new interpretation of Statute 6-20-2305 and a flawed interpretation of Statue 6-2306, I intend to make it clear the ADE is running roughshod over the specific public school funding act of 2003.
The interpretation of the statute as it was applied from 2003 until 2009 was correct as it focused on the 98 percent guarantee for the collection of URT taxes. We completely agree with the earlier interpretation of the statute, that is from 2003 through 2009. The law has not changed, only the ADE's interpretation of the law. Earlier I stated the ADE and the AG were distorting the language of six days, 20 days, 2306.
I say that because the act seems perfectly clear that it applies to recouping the overpayment of funds which were provided by the ADE from legislatively appropriated funds, either foundation funds or the 98 percent guarantee funds, not to the local URT taxes. So that everyone understands the significance of the change in the interpretation. Under the previous interpretation, as with most school districts, Fountain Lake received
a guarantee of 98 percent collection of URT. In the current school year, our district was advanced $164,142 in such guaranteed funds. Should it be determined by the Assessment Control Department that our post-proration collection rate for tax year 2010 was 98 percent or higher, we would be obligated to return the 164, 142 advance, which we would gladly do.
The ADE's new interpretation involves a calculation which is not in the relevant statute, but was in Act 1300 of 1997 and would require our district to turn over the 1.38 million this year and more in future years. So had the ADE been acting according to Act 1300 of 1997, we would not be here today or have a conflict with the ADE.
However, Act 105 of 2003 completely removed the language in Act 1300, which directed the ADE to capture URT local taxes under certain circumstances, and the Act Revised Tax Statues 2680-101-102 to make it crystal clear, as Mr. Rustemann wrote earlier, that the money belongs to the county.
I would point out that there is very significant negative impact of the ADE's intended action on our district, district, which amounts to taking over 10 percent of our current budget, and the insignificant amount or impact it would have on the budgets of other Arkansas school districts. By insignificance, the $2.4 million, which the AD is hoping to capture from the four targeted districts, when spread out over the student population of Arkansas, would add less than $6 per student per year.
That's not going to help them very much. In summary, I support HB 1435 because it makes clear the relevant portions of the 620-2305 are for the 98 percent guarantee and not for capturing URT funds, which exceed foundation funding. And it corrects the language of administrative statute, 1905-305. Finally, one of my objectives is to be able to report to our student body that democracy is alive and well in Arkansas. What do I mean by that?
that our form of government provides for repealing the acts of another governmental entity who is not acting in accordance with existing statutes. By rejecting the tax grab being made by the ADE, we are demonstrating that even governmental entities must follow the laws of the state. Thank you
very much. Committee questions? Mr. McCluskey, I have a question. Rep. Pierce.
Speaker 122
55:17
Anybody? Well, Fountain Lake superintendent. How long have you been a superintendent at Fountain Lake? Four years. This is
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
55:23
my fourth year. Okay. You said who's the longest-serving board member you have down there? Do you have Mr. Westerman? Was it board member president? Yes, sir. Okay. If I remember back late, late, late years ago when I found Lake was involved in the Lakeview lawsuit, if I'm not mistaken. No, sir. They were basically, and Bob
Speaker 107
55:43
was a part of that. I can probably speak to it a little bit better than that.
That was resolved before I got there, but actually that was when they actually rolled the millage back from 37.8 to 34.9. But
Speaker 52
55:57
they were not involved in the original one way back before the one? No, sir,
Speaker 126
56:03
they were not. Okay. All right. If I could, basically, the school
Bob Mccleskey
Unverified
56:08
district was sued by local taxpayers for illegal extraction of taxes. And in my personal opinion, the suit was against the wrong entity. It should have been against the quorum court for permitting the taxes the way they were set up.
But that had nothing to do with Lakeview. Thank you. Mr. Eard, their time is up, but I've got a question. I
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
56:36
will allow you to go ahead and make yours, and I've got one. Okay, a real quick one, just a clarification to the Eureka Springs superintendent. You said your patrons would not pass another millage because you'd just be sending the money to Little Rock. But in reality, anything above the 25 URT,
Speaker 113
56:50
you keep all of that, right? Okay, we just passed a millage of 1.98 mil increase.
Okay, 1.98 mils we're getting in, but now the ADE is asking us to send them 4.5 mils. So it's kind of an exchange of money. We're increasing their millage by less than 2, and we're having to send 4.5 to the state. So it's an exchange of money. It's still the same money we're sending to Little Rock. Okay, but
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
57:16
you agree that you get to keep everything above the 25 mils? Yes, sir. Okay, all right. Thank you.
Mr. Beckwith, what is your fund balance right now?
Speaker 107
57:35
At the end of the year, it's projected to be around $2,699, but again, the reason the fund balance is there, again, we work real hard, you know, to build up that fund balance because we know we have projects, we've had buildings, things of that nature that we have to pay for out of pocket. We get no state help for that. I'll give you a couple examples. You know, my first year there, we had a couple building projects going, and lo and behold, we had to dump a million dollars into a drainage project that nobody could foresee needing that million dollars.
But with that said, had we not had it in the fund balance, we would have been, I mean, you know, forced to go back to raise millage, which obviously, common sense tells you, since you just rolled it back, that wasn't going to happen. Again, with not getting any state aid with facilities is the reason we try to, you know, to have the fund balance. And the fund balance there, the money there is dedicated for projects that are already underway. Thanks, sir. Any more questions from the committee?
Ms. Clemmer, we're out of time, but I'm going to allow
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
58:46
you a question. This is a fact question. I'm not sure who it's to. I thought someone at the end of the table said they were collecting 35 mils. Is that correct? Roughly,
Speaker 111
58:58
that's where we're at. We're at 34.7. Well, it actually got rolled back again, but at 34.7. Okay. I just wanted
to double-check. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you all, gentlemen, for your testimony, appreciate your coming.
Next we have against the bill, we have Tom Kimbrell, ADE. Good morning, Mr. Chair,
Speaker 143
59:31
Madam Chair, appreciate the opportunity to speak. I have with me, sorry, Tom Kimbrell, Commissioner of Education. Well, I'll let you introduce yourself. Mark White, Staff
Speaker 72
59:41
Attorney for the Department of Education. Gentlemen, you may proceed.
Speaker 143
59:45
We would like to ensure this body that we have tried to work with all of these districts. We continue to work with these districts. If you're not aware, and I think you can ask the school people out there that we worked with, that we came in or I came into this position to try to change the perspective and the attitude of the Department of Education is one of resource and support and technical assistance. I think we've made great headway. I think if you ask the school administrators across the state, and many of them in this room,
that's what we've tried to do. We didn't just sit down and send a letter and say, we're not going to try to help. There was, in June, I guess we just had to call it a mistake. For two years, two districts had been receiving more dollars than the foundation-level funding allowed. It was discovered by some of our staff members when there was a question about how to apply the 98%. And when you applied the 98% to one of the districts that did not collect that,
it went even over and above what they were collecting on the 25 mills. For instance, on the 25 mills, they were collecting $7,000 per student, and yet they only collected 96% of the taxes. We sent over $170,000 more to that district. When that came to our attention in June, June the 22nd, as a matter of fact, we had conversation with the two school districts. At that time, we didn't have the AG's opinion. We thought what we knew was to be true, that that money should be remitted back to the state.
But because it was at the end of that fiscal year, we allowed all of those dollars to remain. As both Representative Westerman and Representative King have mentioned, For those previous two years, the districts did keep that excess money from the 25 mills, as well as the 98 percent collection. And I think, as the Attorney General's Office has pointed out, that under the Constitution and the 98 percent rules and law, that 98 percent is only guaranteed up to the foundation level.
So when we began this process, we were told by the Eureka Springs School superintendent that they expected that 98% each and every year, and they would take whatever steps that they felt necessary to retain that 98% level. We then told them, please be aware that we will seek an AG's opinion, and we will have to apply what we believe to be what the law says on the 98%, and we would be checking on the amount of money over the foundation level generated by the 25 mils.
We communicated that in June. We also communicated with Eureka Springs to please don't budget more than $6,023 when they were working on their budget in September. Now, I'll have to tell you, Fountain Lake did not budget the 98% overage. They did not budget any money over the foundation level for their 98%. Eureka did in their budget. So through this process, we've been meeting with these superintendents. Instead of just sending letters, we've had meetings, we've discussed, and we've opened up to a plan.
We've asked each district to develop a plan in worst-case scenario. In an email that I sent in December to all four school districts, I asked them, get together with your board, develop a plan for worst-case scenario. I understand that you may want to go through some other remedy process. maybe through the legislature, maybe through the courts. But worst case scenario, we need a plan and a way in which this could occur that would not put you into a physical situation that would be detrimental to the education of your children.
Now, I know for a fact the governor has put out a 10-year payback plan with no interest. That money that we and the AG's office have informed us we are to recoup could be paid out over 10 years. Now, I'm going to tell you, that's going to still be tough. For Eureka Springs, you're looking at $800,000 of cuts in the operation. Close to that, it will reduce some because of the increase that possibly will come with the increase in adequacy for next year. But that's tough.
I can tell you, I took over a school district that was $1.2 million in red, and for three years it was hard. When you told people you weren't going to get raises, when you cut jobs, when you didn't fund programs, it was hard. It can be done. It will be difficult, and we understand that. Now, to talk about the issue of wealth, when we say a school district is wealthy, we don't talk about the people who live in the district. We're talking about their property assessment and what it generates in the 25 mils to the number of students that they have.
So when you get to where these districts are, they're considered by the state as to be wealthy because they're generating their dollars through the URT solely. The question about what the department would, quote, do with this money that we would try to recoup, it's not that what we would do with it. When we built this year's budget, and if you remember, many of you were in this body last year, and many of you asked me questions about why we cut programs. When we had to build this year's budget, we had to build it on less available revenues than ever before.
We built this year's budget and sent out foundation aid based upon the fact that Eureka Springs, Fountain Lake, Amorel, and Westside Grizz Ferry would receive $6,023 per student. No more. But we built that. So that $2.5 million is actually a part of our current budget operations this year. So that money is commingled in all of the funds that we have in the public school fund to fund not only adequacy, but all of the other programs that we fund across the state, from STEM centers to special education supervisors, et cetera.
So those are dollars that would be in the public school fund budget currently during this operational year. So if this bill gets out and becomes law and those dollars are retained, and that's your call as a legislative body, then that's 2.5 approximately dollars that our budget will not have to finish this year. So it's not we're trying to get the money to do something different with it. We're trying to make this work within our budget. But it's not the dollars.
It's the issue of adequacy and the equity that comes with funding schools based upon the formula that we have. Both of these gentlemen are correct. We have one of the best, most supported funding systems in the country. It is simple compared to most other states, although for many of you, you may think it's very complex, and it does get some complexity to it. But it is simple in that we're guaranteeing, the state is guaranteeing every student a level of funding, and that money comes from a state tax called the URT.
To answer the physical distress question, yes, there are two of those districts. One was in physical distress, didn't have anything to do with this. They were in physical distress while they were receiving the additional dollars. It was a mismanagement of funds. There is an interim superintendent who's now there who's got them back on track. actually will end this year with over a million dollars and will pay back this funding stream that has been their decision already they will pay it back be done with it in one year and they'll move on and they will go out of physical distress at the end of this year the other district when they began looking
at their budget and had to revise their budget under our guidance they had overestimated their revenues but not the hundred and twelve thousand dollars that are involved here but over six hundred thousand dollars in local revenues that they mistakenly budgeted so it doesn't have anything to those two districts the physical distress issue is not a part of this one of the other things that we've told the districts we will work to keep you out of physical distress we will help you this will not automatically throw you into physical distress if the appropriate decisions are made and have to be made at the
local level to do this schools are funded based upon a level of funding that is guaranteed by the URT. And as the AG's office has pointed out, to us time and time again, this is what our interpretation is. When we found this error in our calculations, we pointed it out, and we've been working with these
Speaker 147
1:08:08
districts to try to help. I'll stop there and take any questions that you may have. Committee questions? Mr. Deird. Yes,
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:08:23
Mr. Campbell. You said earlier that there may be other remedies. Were you maybe
implying that a court decision might be necessary to adjudicate this? Well, yes, sir.
Speaker 151
1:08:32
It's been our opinion that this is an issue of law. It's an
Speaker 143
1:08:38
interpretation issue. Our attorneys, both in the department and the AG's office, believe that this is the constitutional issue and believes that we are applying the law correctly, and that's what we believe. There are attorneys that work for the school districts that are involved.
who believe that our interpretation may be wrong. In that case, a court should make that determination as to whether the application of the law is correct or not. And that should be litigated in court and not legislated here. All right. Thank you. Ms. Hobbs, you had your hand
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:09:15
up, I believe. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. I had a little bit of a distraction going on over here. And I know you said that the formula is simple, but for some of us it's not all that simple. But when you mentioned the 98 percent, what does that mean?
Speaker 143
1:09:29
And, again, if you explained it, I apologize. No, ma'am. The 98 percent is part of the formula. Every school district is guaranteed their local taxes will generate 98 percent of their assessment. In other words, we had districts across the state. When you take the formula and you use the assessment times 98 percent, that's what the formula says, that generates what you raise locally. But the problem that was brought up in the last Lakeview case was that there were districts not collecting 98%. So when you did the math, they actually didn't get the foundation amount.
They got less. And so the state is responsible for ensuring that they get to that 98%, which would guarantee them the foundation level amount. So we have districts that collect 96%, so we have to add 2% of their assessment to get to, in this case, this year, 6,023. We'll have districts that will collect over 98 percent, and therefore they have to pay the state back because they're only guaranteed 6,023. So that's where the 98 percent. If I had a whiteboard, I could show you. The teacher in me is coming out.
I understand. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other questions, Committee? Seeing none, thank you, gentlemen,
for your testimony. We have one other sign- well, we have a couple other sign-up to speak against it, but Rich Nagle, AEA.
Speaker 161
1:10:52
Rich, you still want to- Rich, you have two minutes, 44 seconds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 162
1:11:01
That's exactly the amount of time I asked the Commissioner to leave me. I'll be brief. First of all, we think it's a well-settled matter that the 25 mills in the URT belongs to the state and the districts that collect more than the amount guaranteed by the state from their local URT is state money and should be turned back. A second point I'd like to make is that this rule, and there's current statute, current
law that provides for any district that receives too much money for the department to be able and the state to be able to get that money back, if the poorest school district and local resources in this state were in the same situation as Eureka Springs and received an overpayment, they also would have to pay it back. Third point I'd like to make is this is not the first time in the state's school funding history that school districts in the state from their own local property taxes received
more than the state guaranteed. And I believe if you would go back to a couple school finance acts before the current one, Eureka Springs and some other school districts never received any state aid because they were so wealthy in local resources per student. A couple of questions about whether there's an advantage or an incentive for a school district to raise its millage above 25 mills for maintenance and operation. There absolutely certainly is.
There always has been. And if every community in Arkansas should want to do and provide the best possible education that it can for its children, and any school district that provides or raises millage above 25 mills, they can offer an educational program that's better than the adequate educational program guaranteed to every school district in the state. And they do get to keep all that money above 25 mills. So it is in their advantage.
The last thing I would say is the passage of this would jeopardize Arkansas's current school funding system. It is based on equitable measures and adequate measures. And I think We'd urge you to vote against the bill. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 87
1:13:33
sir. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you.
Mr. King, we're back to you and Mr. Westerman, if you all want to close for your bill. And I know the motion had five minutes, but we did not start the time on the first person that testified against your bill, so I will give you a little extra time if you need it, if that's okay with the committee. Mr. Chairman, could I have just two minutes, and I have five minutes for closing, but I
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
1:14:10
have two minutes for Mr. Sayer, who's going to speak for the bill. Can I have two minutes for him? Yes, sir. That'll be fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gene Sayer
Unverified
1:14:20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. on the committee. My name is Gene Sayer. I'm an attorney who represents the Eureka Springs School District and the Fountain Lake School District. I notice, and when I looked at this originally, your eyes kind of glaze over with all the figures and the 98 percent and what's foundation funding. I will point out that when you there's nothing that requires in the Constitution this draconian measure to take the amount over the Foundation funding.
The Foundation funding is set by the legislature every year, and in the Act, it says this is an adequate amount of money to provide an education for each child in Arkansas. The word is adequate, Lakeview case used adequate. The Constitutional Amendment uses adequate. The question is, in this instance, the foundation funding is set at $6,023.
The Commissioner of Education said that they guarantee 98% of the collection of your URT, your local tax money. Well, in this instance, that's a figure, we'd say $7,000, and then above that would be 100% of the URT. Well, Fountain Lake and Eureka Springs would be happy to refund the monies that were advanced to them,
But there's nothing in the law except for the interpretation that's given by the ADE that asks for this draconian amount to be over the funding, the $6,000, not the $7,000 that is collected, which is the 98%. So this law would simply allow the district to keep all of its local monies produced and not take anything from the state.
They're not taking anything from the state as testified and building their buildings and doing things. But the state's coming in and taking the amount over what is determined to be an adequate amount to educate the people. The students, excuse me. Go ahead. thank you sir Mr.
King you and y'all ready to close for your bill
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:17:07
thank you Mr. Chair I'm going to be brief just to recap a little bit
the ADE claims that they have tried to work with the districts I want to make it clear that they've tried to work for this one year but this what's happening will happen every year in Fountain Lake's case it will be 1.4 million dollars every year Now, if they've got 10 years to pay back for this one year, that's not that big a deal. But for this to happen every year from here on out is a big deal. The only – I still say that this money will just be used to offset general revenues.
And the commissioner talked about keeping the districts out of fiscal distress. Well, the districts don't need the commissioner's help. All they have to do is go cut services to these kids, and that's what will have to be done to keep them out of fiscal distress. I have an internal memo here from the department that was from FOI, and it's from staff attorney Kendra Webb to Jeremy Laster, and it's talking about the attorney general's opinion.
It says, I see in the letters that there are a couple of issues I see in the letters that might not correspond to the AG opinion, and some discrepancies in the AG opinion. So internally, the Department of Ed didn't even totally agree with the Department of Ed's opinion. And also, the data I have shows that districts have been, Fountain Lake and Eureka Springs did not get student aid or state aid per student for four years, not two years, but four years. And finally, I have in my hand my tax bill from the Garland County tax collector, Rebecca Dodd Talbert.
Nowhere on this bill does it say anything about this money is going to the state. It says it goes to Fountain Lake School. Thank you. Members of the
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
1:18:59
committee, I know you've heard some testimony, and there was a lot of things that have been said before then. Like I said, let's let the courts decide the constitutionality. But when it comes down to the decision, you know, and I mean this in the nicest way because you're my colleagues, but on the per diem list and everything, some of you have made more money than I have, but you deserve it. You have attended the meetings and made it. You know, when it comes to recording, Eureka Springs does make more money for their millage than other schools.
But you know what, folks? Two years ago, we had a very balanced system that worked. I mean, there are advantages to Eureka Springs, and there are disadvantages. And what I find that is a problem is, and in the class warfare issue that we have, that, you know, they do have an advantage, but they also have disadvantages. There's advantages on the other side of the river or the other side of the issues in your district. I know I'm a hard driver, but I've never asked anybody to vote for something in their district that they can't explain. And as I pointed out earlier, I have to explain this to the other schools in my district.
I mean, I have three schools in my district that I have to answer for, much like you, the why I think this is a good policy to do so. And I know you hear all the things about this is always for the kids. This is for the kids. And there are going to be severe consequences to these districts, these wealthy districts that have been mistermed wealthy districts, that, number one, if this goes through and we don't change what the Department of Education wants to do, they're not going to be able to pass another millage, folks. And let me tell you something.
That's going to hurt every kid in those districts and not just the other ones in the other schools as well. Folks, I'm asking you for a good vote. This is the right thing to do, to go back to
the way we were doing things two years ago. I'd appreciate a good
vote. Thank you, gentlemen. Committee, what is your pleasure? Motion. Need
a motion? Move, do pass. Have a motion, do pass. As amended. All in favor say aye. Aye.
All opposed, no. No. Have a request for a roll call,
Speaker 178
1:21:16
Mr. Hudson. Sees two hands. Representative
Speaker 179
1:21:24
Bradford Representative Webb Representative Pierce Representative Hutchinson
Representative Stewart Representative Brown Representative Baird Representative Summers Representative Summers Representative Hobbs Representative Carnine Representative Dale Representative Hopper Representative Klemmer Representative McLean
Representative McLean Representative Dickinson Representative English Representative Steele Representative Wren Representative Roebuck No 7 far
the bill has failed thank you committee thank you gentlemen
thank you committee we're going thank you for bringing this to us we're going to try to look at a couple of bills before we adjourn for lunch we actually had offered to have lunch brought in but I
Speaker 190
1:22:59
denied that. Most of y'all look pretty well fed, but
Speaker 191
1:23:03
most of you. What do you need our vote on next, Mr. Chair?
...senators in the room. Mr. Johnson, are you chairing the committee down there? No. Ms. Hahn, I
Speaker 194
1:23:36
think it's going to be excellent. Are you ready
to do, Mr. Johnson, you ready to do your bill? Yes. It's just a short, non-controversial...
Two bills. Two bills? All right. We have the same. I know. So, Ms. Roebuck, and what I was getting at, if you chair a committee down there, we expect the same courtesy.
Because we understand the House bills are piling up down there in the Senate. Well, I don't chair a committee, but I'll see what I can do.
Speaker 195
1:24:08
Okay. Thank you, sir. Which bill are you going to run first, sir? Mr. Chairman, this is
Senate Bill 892. Senate Bill 892, committee. It should be
Mr. Bill, Senator Johnson, do you recognize yourself
Senator David Johnson
Unverified
1:24:49
the record? Yes, David Johnson, State Senator, District
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:24:59
32. You may proceed. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this bill clarifies Arkansas's anti-bullying policies. It does three things primarily. One is it requires school administration to promptly investigate any bullying incident on which there is a report.
It requires that school districts provide training to teachers and school employees about the school districts anti-bullying policy and also makes clear that bullying includes bullying for certain personal characteristics in addition to other reasons this isn't a limiting on page one any kind of limiting criteria this just makes makes clear that bullying includes bullying for these reasons straightforward bill I'd be happy to answer any questions committee rip that's
Representative Tommy Wren
Unverified
1:25:49
Senator Johnson, I appreciate you bringing this to the table. My question is, I didn't see anything, you know, cyberbullying is a big deal now, and it happens off school grounds, you know, on things like Facebook and Twitter and different things. Is there anything in here that would coincide with that? It would.
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:26:09
Primarily, and this statute is a statute that's been on the books for some time, so we're amending a statute that's already there. It primarily, if you read it, deals primarily with incidents on the school grounds.
Now, cyberbullying can't occur on school grounds, so that's really what this does. As you may know, there's a separate bill. There may be a couple of separate bills. This session, I know one's passed out of the Senate that deals specifically with cyberbullying, which would permit law enforcement to start dealing with people that the school district doesn't have authority over outside the school grounds. Okay. Okay. So this would just have to do with on-school grounds? School grounds.
Speaker 201
1:26:47
It could include cyberbullying if it's done on the school grounds. A ballgame?
That's right. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Any other questions? Mrs.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:26:58
Hobbs, do you have a question? Please, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I tried to look over this very quickly, and I may have missed it. But does this bill, or is there something else out there that you are aware of that addresses teachers that engage in bullying of students? Good question. I believe Representative Hobbs, that's a good question.
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:27:27
I don't know if there may be another bill out there. Excuse me. I don't think that the bill necessarily reaches school employees, but that's an excellent question. And it should be done. I agree with that. MS. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. Ms. Hobbs,
there's some conversations going on. Repeat your question you asked him. MS.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:27:53
Okay. I ask if this bill or if there are other policies out there that would apply to teachers who
engage in bullying of students. MR. And let me – MR. Teachers
Senator David Johnson
Unverified
1:28:08
bullying a student or teachers being bullied by a student? MS. No, teachers bullying a student. MR. Now, thank you. The other part is covered. MR.
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:28:15
There's no limitation in current law that would restrict it only to students who do the bullying. So provided that the school district's policies encompass a teacher doing the bullying, then I think the statute would cover that kind of situation. It is in reference directly in the new language we're adding, but I do believe the statute as existing would permit a school district's policy
to encompass the exact kind of
thing you're talking about. I'm not sure that it
doesn't cover it on Phase 2, but I may be wrong, But I
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:28:53
think that first paragraph, lines 5 through 6, am I misreading that, Senator? Well, that section, the new language there is where we're bringing in those attributes that I mentioned on page 1. So if someone who's doing bullying, the bullying includes addressing an attribute of the other
person the school employee or a person with whom the school with whom the student or public employee is associated for example a parent then that would that would create a situation of bullying. Thank you. Committee any other questions but Mr. Wren? We
have a motion already Mr. Wren on the floor of Rep. Webb. Thank you Mr. Chair. Move do pass. I have a motion do pass committee. All in favor say aye. Opposed, like signed, lay ayes have it. Senator Johnson, you pass that bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:29:40
The other one is Senate Bill 268, and I have a friend, a
Speaker 211
1:29:43
constituent, to come up, if I may, to have her join me. Senate Bill 268. That'll be proper. Mr. Chairman, I'll have her introduce
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:30:01
herself, and then I'll explain the mechanics of the bill, and then ask Ms. Ferguson, Jennifer Ferguson, to give you a sort of a personal perspective about why we're bringing this bill. Hello, Mr. Chairman and Board.
Speaker 217
1:30:11
I'm Jennifer Ferguson, and I represent mothers of multiples
Speaker 195
1:30:16
in Arkansas. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, this
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:30:19
bill deals with parents of twins, triplets, multiples, and when those children enter school all the way through sixth grade, this bill would permit those parents to make a selection about whether those twins or triplets or whoever it may be could be in the same class or be in separate classes. There are plenty of school districts already who have this policy on their own and permit
parents to make this option. And there are other states that require this. Texas, I think, two years ago passed a similar statute. I think it was unanimously. I think Ms. Ferguson may have a list or know of some other states that do this. But there's an occasion from time to time when a parent strongly believes that his or her children should be in the same class or should be in separate classes. And because the school administrator, who doesn't know these children, feels that there should be a blanket policy that that covers all children they override the
parent and of course you all know as well as I do that the parent or more than any principal or school administrators can have a much better perspective on on that kind of decision so that's what this bill does I'm gonna let miss Ferguson give you more of a personal
Speaker 219
1:31:34
perspective about the need for this bill okay thank you my name is Jennifer Ferguson a mother of five that includes a set of twins. I want to talk about multiple placement in the classroom and tell you my story. In 2006, when my twin girls started pre-kindergarten in the Little Rock
School District, I was asked if I wanted them to be in the same class or in separate classes. My husband and I went home, discussed it, and concluded that knowing the girls' personalities and our family situation, they would do just fine together, and it would also be the best choice for our family. Like I said, we have five children. Keeping them together has enabled us to spend more time in one classroom and be more involved than if we had them separated. My husband and I feel parental involvement is key for education to be successful, and they did have a
successful year. We kept an open communication with their teachers and expressed our desire to know if ever there was an issue regarding this particular decision to please let us know. Not one issue came up. The following year, we entered into kindergarten in a local private school, got the same question, and responded the same way, together. Again, we had a very successful year, and not one single issue involving the fact that they happened to be born at the same time. The following year, we made a switch back to the public school system. When it was time for registration, I again asked for my girls to be in the same class.
The response I received was that twins will never be individuals as long as they are in the same class, so it is the school's policy to separate them. The principal then expressed her frustration with parents of twins on this subject, and that if I didn't like it, I was welcome to go above her head. You can imagine my shock for several reasons, but the biggest by far was how a principal who had never even seen my girls could tell me, the parent, that they were not or could not be individuals if kept in the same classroom.
All of my children are encouraged to be the children God created them to be. Reagan enjoys musical instruments like the guitar and drama and acting. McKenzie enjoys gymnastics and all things high school musical. McKenzie excels in writing while Reagan excels in math. They do not dress alike or wear their hair the same. They were just born on the same day, around the same time, to the same parents. In every study performed on twins and their placement in schools, the results concluded that each set of twins were different and stresses the importance of an open policy.
Dr. Nancy Segal, as well as Dr. John Maskezine, both well-known twin researchers, fully support and encourage an open placement policy, as well as the International Society for Twin Studies. The Tully Report, Lou and Netherland Study, and most recently the Academic and Practitioner Perceptions, Meeting the Unique Needs of Twin Study, all find that input from the parents on the decision to separate or keep together is invaluable and that each set of twins should be looked at individually instead of as a whole across the board. I have included where to find
these studies plus several others as well as a letter from the New York State Board of Psychologists which says it best. Placement in separate classrooms does not fit the needs of all multiples any more than placement together. The federal government has established guidelines for educators in the ERIC Digest, which gives specific guidelines for twin placement and parental involvement. The National Association of School Psychologists urges school officials to maintain a flexible policy and to consult with parents to determine when and if separation is necessary. As I parent, I found this situation to be extremely frustrating. School administrations
seek and want parental involvement and therefore should be willing to listen to the parent. I felt like I was being told that I did not know what was best for my children. After months of meetings with different school officials and finally ending up with the superintendent, my request was granted. However, there is no policy written on twin placement, despite what I was initially told. It is left up to the individual schools. I have had to fight this fight every year since, and at times have even dealt with repercussions from our request.
to keep my twins from even playing together at all like they were being punished. There are so many parents of multiples out there that deal with this and don't have the resources, time, or possibly the knowledge of their rights to fight the same right we have fought for so many years. I am asking you for the ability of parents of multiples to be able to make the choice on what is best for their children, not a blanket statement for all kids because every situation is not the same. Some twins do better together, and some twins do better apart.
We don't want the state or the schools making this decision for us as parents of multiples. Twins should not be penalized for being born at the same time, forced to separate or stay together. But the only people that can make a qualified decision like that are the ones who have been with them. I, the parent, know what is best for my child. I am proud of my girls and who they are. I love them each for their differences and their similarities. We evaluate every year and continue to keep an open dialogue with their teachers. I want to be able to make that decision and not have to fight for it every single year.
The need for legislation to clarify the role of parents and school administrators in the placement of multiples issue has already been recognized by over 21 states, and 12 have passed legislation supporting the parents' input, including Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. Please let Arkansas parents of multiples have the same rights. I am asking you to vote yes on Senate Bill 268. allow our rights as parents to be taken away from us anymore. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll be happy to take questions. Representative Steele, you had a question, I believe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question.
Speaker 223
1:37:16
Good to see you, Senator. Thank you. I certainly support your bill, but just wanted to
Speaker 224
1:37:21
bring the point up that you are aware, I'm sure, that you can have siblings in the same grade that are not twins. That's right. I know my – I dealt with that issue. The Little Rock School District parent wanted them in the same grade and really fought and went to the school board and all that, but they were actually about ten and a half months apart and were not allowed to start together.
And also in cases of adoption, one may be a birth child, another may be adopted the same age and the same grade. So you may have another B.O. to do next time, maybe to take care of
Speaker 225
1:37:57
those situations. We'll work on that next time. That's a great point. Thank you for pointing that out. Thank you.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:38:08
Representative Stewart. Representative Stewart. Representative Stewart. Representative Stewart, question. Yes. Thank you. Basically, the thing I see here, the biggest thing is the school districts must adopt a written policy on multiple birth policy, and then the parents must notify the school 14
days before school starts in order to place those in the school. That's right. Then the school still has some latitude, then after 30 days of instructional time, they They can review their decision and look at discipline, educational environment, et cetera, and then still make a change. That's
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:38:37
right. After 30 days pass, if any of the criteria in Section E2 on page 2 are met, then they can do their own placement. Okay. Sounds good to me.
Thank you. Committee, any other questions? Representative
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:38:57
Clemmer. I did have a motion, but I had to ask the senator a question before I make that motion. You do realize that
by saying parents should be in charge of their children's education or involved in their children, we're entering into real dangerous territory, are we
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
1:39:18
not? Well, no, I don't think so at all.
That was sarcastic. Motion do pass. Thank you. I'll take that motion at the proper time. Any other questions, committee? If not, we'll go to the audience. We have Richard Abernathy who wishes to speak against this bill. Senator, if you all slide over to the side there and
Speaker 54
1:39:46
let Mr. Abernathy come to the table. Recognize yourself with the record, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Richard Abernathy, Executive Director of the Administrator's Association.
Speaker 234
1:39:53
And, first of all, I appreciate Senator Johnson bringing this bill because we do think it's important to be addressed. There are several things in here that we can agree with, such as flexibility of scheduling, parents having input on their educational delivery of their child. We think that's extremely important. I think this bill goes a little beyond that. When you start looking at down at the bottom of page one, where basically the parents shall decide the placement of their child on multiple birth siblings without input from the schools.
I think it needs to be a partnership and not a dictatorial by the parent or the school, either one. The school does have some flexibility, Representative Stewart, as you mentioned, but it's after 30 days of instruction has taken place. And typically after 30 days of instruction, kids are situated in the classroom. You know, if there are problems, you know it before 30 days. And if there's not, then obviously 30 days will be after that. But we'd like to see some input being given by teachers and professionals prior to 30 days on placement of their kids.
One of the things that concerns me is when one parent can dictate necessarily the educational program of another parent's child. The way this is written, if this parent wants their child placed in a previous classroom, we have school districts who give out their schedules the last day of school in a previous year. If those classes are full and then you have a parent move in with multiple birth siblings or just decides 14 days prior to school starting that they want their child placed together,
it very well could displace another child who had been counting on being in a teacher's classroom all summer. We have an issue of that. We do think that this needs to be left to the professionals as well as the parents. And if there is a problem with the local school district, then we think that's why local school boards are elected. And they need to go through and work on their policies and get those policies tweaked where there is input from the teachers as well as faculty before a child is placed. With that, I'll be glad to answer any questions.
But, again, we do think that flexibility in scheduling is good. Parent input is good. We also think professional input is good. And we don't believe this hardly reaches that level. Thank you, Mr. Abbranthi. Committee,
questions? Seeing none. Well, thank you. We have one other person in the audience,
I believe, that wants to speak for this bill,
Cassandra Kirby. Is that correct? Come to the table, please, and you may identify yourself for the record. My name
Cassandra Kirby
Unverified
1:42:46
is Cassandra Kirby, and I am a mother of twins and a singleton. As the former president of Central Arkansas Mothers and Multiples, a group committed to providing a supportive environment for parents of multiple birth children, I've heard the frustrations of parents placing their children in public school classrooms.
Many of these parents were discouraged by public school administrators completely dismissing their preferences for placing their multiples either together or in separate classrooms. These administrators claimed that they know what was best for the twins, or triplets, or more, and not giving these parents their voice in their children's educational needs. And now, as a mother of twin boys about to place her children in kindergarten, I knew I might not be heard. A couple weeks ago, I called my local school district, Benton School District, Caldwell Elementary, where my daughter attends, to inquire about kindergarten registration dates.
I was told the dates and asked, what is the school's policy on placing twins in the classroom? I was asked if I preferred to have them together or separate. I thought, wow, this is great. When I replied together, I was told she didn't know the policy, but she would find out. And I asked her, well, what would your answer have been if I said separate? And she giggled and said, well, I still don't know the answer. I'll find out for you. And she did. She called me back. She told me that she asked the principal and was told that there is no set policy. However, they leave it up to the teachers that do the kindergarten assessment to decide.
She went on to say that in general, they separate the twins. To make sure that I understood her, I asked, so the teachers that spend 15 minutes with them going over their alphabet and their numbers will decide whether my boys can be placed together or not? And she answered to the affirmative. I'm a newly divorced single mother of three with sole custody of my children. I know my children. I know what the children need from the classroom. I know that my twins need stability and consistency to thrive, especially now after my divorce.
At this stage in their life, I know that they need to be placed in the same classroom. I don't ask that they sit together. I don't ask for a specific teacher. I just ask that the school administrators place my kids together and let me be heard. And in my situation, I find it best for me to be able to coordinate my children's educational needs if I just have one teacher rather than multiple teachers to deal with. Because of my association with the Central Arkansas Mothers of Multiples I'm in a position to hear the stories of other parents of multiples in school districts that have an open policy in Cabot and in Northwest Arkansas.
These schools and the parents are happy with this policy as there is no multiple superpower taking over the schools. These schools are listening to the parents, and it's working. There are those that will let you believe that giving the parents a voice adds a fiscal problem, but I don't see that as the case. The children have to be placed no matter what. whether you place them together or separate, with just a preference. But they're still going to need to be placed in a classroom. And if you have children coming into a district after they've already assigned classrooms, you're still going to have to place them.
So whether there's displacement before or after, it really is you're going to have to put the kids somewhere. So I support Senate Bill 268, and I'd like you to consider the needs of the parents and the
Speaker 239
1:46:05
children and look for your support as well. Thank you, ma'am. Any questions, committee? I think I had
a motion here somewhere a while ago. Okay. Representative Klemmer, you had a motion? Yes, sir. Move to pass. Okay.
I don't think that anybody else in the audience has signed up to speak for or against this bill. Is that correct? Seeing none, I'll come back to the committee. We have a motion to pass. All of them in favor say aye.
Speaker 243
1:46:34
Aye. All opposed? No. No. Hmm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Thank you, Senator, I think, for bringing that. Committee, I'm skipping around
a little bit, and the problem we have is I've promised about four people they could go first, you know, But I'm going to let Representative Bradford, because she has someone with us, instead of still getting mad, leave, just because you're going to be next.
Would you recognize your committee? We're looking at House Bill
1819, and Representative Bradford, would you identify yourself and your guest can
Speaker 212
1:47:48
identify herself? Yes. I'm Tony Bradford, State
Speaker 139
1:47:51
Representative. I'm Alicia Starkey. I'm the President of the Arkansas Speech Language and Hearing Association. You
Speaker 139
1:48:04
going to let Ms. Starkey explain the bill. You may proceed. Thank you very much, committee members. This bill simply adds to a bill that was passed several years ago, 605.
What it does is it changes back the date of a stipend for a speech-language pathologist. This bill was passed five years ago, which recognized that speech-language pathologists would receive a stipend that is equal to that of master-level teachers. speech pathologists hold a certificate of clinical competence from ASHA, we hold state licensure so that we can bill Medicaid, and we also, many of us in public school, hold a public school teaching license.
So this stipend would allow us to keep and retain highly qualified personnel, which meets both the No Child Left Behind and IDEA regulations. This bill recognizes right now that there is not funding, however, it will apply the stipend when the funding is available. It moves it to December 1st. This is the time when master-level teachers who are recognized through the National Board receive their stipend, so it has a collegial spirit to it.
It also – this bill adds an amendment – was amended at the behest of the Department of Education to be able to recoup monies if the speech-language pathologist resigns from the school district prior to meeting the three-year recommended the three-year requirement tells how it would be recouped and and when it would be recouped recouped this is not funded unless the money is there we're just
Just asking that this be changed to December 1 to be more equitable. Thank you. Thank you. Committee, questions?
Anyone? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak for or against this bill? You may recognize yourself for the
Speaker 246
1:50:18
record. Not here to speak for or against
Speaker 143
1:50:23
it on either side. want to remind everyone that this is a funding issue. Funds aren't available. We can't fund this.
They did work with us well in making sure, because you do have situations if the funding, and we see this, matter of fact, we've got a situation right now with several national board certified people who owe the state back some money. So if you paid them in December and they didn't finish their contract with that school, we'd have to recoup that. So they worked with us, the department to make sure that that language was in there so the state would be able to recoup the funds. When the funds get available that we can fund this program. I just want to make
everybody make sure everybody understands that and that they did work with us to help make this
a better bill. Thank you for those
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:51:12
comments. Mrs. Hopper, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Kimbrell, I'm sorry, but can you further elaborate contingency on funds being available? Where, how much? I'm looking at
Speaker 143
1:51:26
the impact statement. Yes, ma'am. Please, thank you. That would be funds that would be available through the public school fund when we have access to public school funds that don't require those issues of adequacies and current programs.
And I think the fiscal impact speaks to the number that we currently have that are eligible for this incentive bonus currently. And do you know how many
Speaker 139
1:51:58
my head. I don't know, ma'am. I'm sorry. Anyone at the end of the table? I know that it winds up being about $2.5 million and that it is a $5,000 stipend. I am not a math person. I'm a language person, so I can appreciate that.
Speaker 252
1:52:12
But that helps me. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 58
1:52:18
Do you have a question? No, I was just wanting to know what the
total cost of this would be. I think last time we ran this bill, it was estimated $2.5 million, I believe, at
that time. Anyone else want to speak for or against this bill in the audience? Seeing that, we're back to the committee. Mr. Wren? Motion. Motion. Do
pass. Do pass. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? No. The ayes have it. You have passed your bill, Mr. Bradford. Thank you,
committee. Thank you. Mr. Steele, we're going to go to you, House
Speaker 257
1:53:06
Bill 2125. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, I would never get mad at you.
Speaker 223
1:53:13
I know you're going to get to me in due time. Members, a couple of sessions ago, this first bill is
Speaker 260
1:53:23
quite simple. A couple of sessions ago, we passed legislation to put social workers actually in the schools in some of our most impoverished areas of the state. And it has turned out just to be a wonderful program. When kids have uncontrollable behavior problems, they may come.
Teachers may see marks on them. And they're just not in a position to be able to adequately deal with them. So we decided to allow teachers to be able to do what they have been trained to do in the classroom, that there be a professional actually in the school, a social worker, that can deal with some of these children who have problems that go beyond education. This program has been funded through the TANF program that is absolutely no state money,
state money, and this program is administered by DHS and the Department of Workforce Services. And all this bill is doing is opening up the eligibility from 90 percent of schools who are on free and reduced luncheon to 80 percent. It does not increase at all the funding. It's all federally funded and based on funds that's available presently.
MR. Thank you. Any questions? Committee? Representative Carnine.
Gene Sayer
Unverified
1:54:44
Representative Seals, excuse me. Are you saying that these are going to be additional workers that would be involved with the schools? MR. No, it's not additional
Speaker 262
1:54:57
workers. It's actually additional eligibility. Right now, the program only exists for schools who
Speaker 260
1:55:03
have kids on 90 percent free and reduced luncheon and we're dropping that from ninety to eighty so the pool is going to increase the actual workers will not increase
unless money is available uh... some schools most of them certainly want it uh... but some schools don't they say well then we don't have office space and those type of things so we don't want those positions that go on you so we want to increase to the pool
Gene Sayer
Unverified
1:55:32
out there and that's why we're dropping it from ninety to eighty well i do recognize that obviously they need to have facilities where obviously a lot of times confidential information can be exchanged. There are other issues here. I just wanted to be sure that what I was hearing
was correct. Thank you very much. Committee, any
additional questions? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill, for this bill? Seeing none,
we'll come back to the committee. What is your I have a motion to do pass, Representative Curnine, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Like a sign. You have passed your bill. Representative Steele. Representative
Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee. I think your next bill is 1937, is that correct?
Speaker 260
1:56:21
That's correct. You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill simply goes back to the beginning and we've talked about this issue before with mainly initiated by the scholarship lottery. Serving on that work group and putting the lottery scholarship program together now called the Arkansas Academic Challenge Scholarship, we knew that there would be some issues that went basically unaddressed. And we are at
the point now after spending $112 million on scholarships to evaluate the program in in these stated areas based on race, gender, residence, also one big area that we just did not address because of a multitude of reasons, including time and trying to get the scholarships up and going the first year, we did not address how we deal with individuals with learning disabilities should they be held to the same standard as other kids.
So this bill simply just requires that there be a study on this issue and report back to the Oversight Committee with
Speaker 161
1:57:31
their findings. Okay. Thanks, sir. Committee, questions?
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:57:38
Ms. Hopper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, could you just expand for me? I'm looking at item 5, page 2, the barriers to applying for the scholarships encountered by students. what your thoughts are there about how we would get this information
Speaker 262
1:57:58
basically how we would get the information and actually those kids who need help
Speaker 260
1:58:04
even applying for the scholarships they may have parents who never even finished high school so they're left on their own to try and go in and apply for these scholarships meet the due dates and things of that nature we've talked with both higher ed department of education who feel that there are some input some valuable input that they could lend to them could lead to possible legislation in the next session
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:58:29
so the departments would provide us with this or which I
matter like focus groups with students or how are
Speaker 260
1:58:36
we just recommendations yes focus group with students and that's why if you see on page 2 line 13 we're going Okay, 13 through 17, these are some of the individuals outside of the legislative and administrative branch of government to include two-year colleges, four-year college, high school guidance counselor, academic coaches, all working together to find out what worked, what didn't work, why maybe then some of the students who should have applied, why didn't
Speaker 262
1:59:04
they apply, and were there any barriers for them applying? Thank you.
Any other questions, committee? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill or for this bill? Committee, we're back
to you. What is your pleasure? Have a motion to do pass. All those who in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed, believe the ayes have it. Mr. Steele, you passed your bill. Thank you, sir. Committee, we're going to run some concurrence.
Ms. Roebuck has two bills. House Bill 2032, and there's an amendment we'll pass out on that bill. And she swears this is non-controversial. Okay. This is simply adding co-sponsors. I
need a motion. I have a motion to adopt the amendment.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Ms. Roebuck, you may proceed.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:00:16
Mr. Chair, do you want me to do my concurrent amendments first that are on the agenda? 2032 is
what we're working on, right? All right. Sorry. Okay. Simply added
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:00:31
two sponsors if I'm reading this right. Yes, sir. And we've already adopted that. Yes, added Representative Hutchinson in the House and Senator Key in the Senate.
Members, House Bill 2032 is again coming out of Representative Hutchinson's remediation interim study and some things that we would like to do as those recommendations came out from that group. I have with me today, Mr. Chair, Director Broadway from the Department of Higher Education. And I'd like for him to explain what we're doing in
Speaker 282
2:01:01
2032. All right, Mr. Broadway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This is something we appreciate Representative Roebuck and Representative Hutchison
and the work that they have done over the past couple of years focused on remediation. The bills you're going to see currently and the one following are part of the governor's package in terms of our work at the Department of Higher Education working with the legislature and the governor and the institutions of higher education to focus on reducing the rates of remediation in Arkansas, an issue that we all know of great importance, especially having been one of those students myself.
I come from a unique perspective. House Bill 2032, you saw earlier, I think last week, the bill regarding the CPEP program. That is part of our cooperation in working with the Department of Education to look at ways in which we can try to address remediation at the K-12 level. We are also, just for your information, in terms of how we're working as partners together to try to address this issue, tomorrow our department will be meeting with the Department
of Career Education to talk about ways in which we can utilize the services of adult education as part of remediation in a combination with colleges and universities so we're trying to work on several fronts with all of the educational entities to try to address and reduce the rates of remediation what this bill does on 2032 you see the the coordinating board hired coordinating board has the authority to establish the remediation cutoffs the criterias and
And that's what you see the change here. Currently that is obviously, as most of you know, the ACT. There may be, and one thing we want to look at in working with Representative Roebuck is, are there other criteria in terms of identifying a student and their need for remediation that need to be considered besides just the ACT? This will allow our board and our agency to look around the country to do some research in terms of what may be out there that's not currently being utilized and allow us to make
a determination. Is that the best predictor of who needs remediation? It may come back to what we're currently using is the way it should be, but this will give us some ability to go out there and do that research and those determinations. The other will allow the board to set the minimum score to allow a student, and we've talked about this several times. I know you've been a part of some of those conversations. One of the issues of a student who has to take remediation, as I said, speaking from
experience, is you don't receive credit. And for those who have to take 6, 9, or 12 hours remediation, it can be very disheartening when you take all of these courses, and at the end of the day, you still have nothing to show for it in terms of getting closer to your degree. So what we've talked about is developing the ability for colleges and universities to enroll students who need to be remediated into those credit-bearing courses while at the same time being remediated. And the best example we've utilized is a college English class this Monday, Wednesday and Friday,
but they take the remedial lab on Tuesday and Thursday. So they're actually taking five hours of courses of a course, but at the end of that semester they do get three hours of credit, and they've been remediated to where they need to be. So we believe this will give some opportunity to try to reduce and give those students an opportunity to get credit while they're being remediated, which increases their percentage of being able to get towards some type of credential. So that's what this bill does. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Clemmer, I believe you had a
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:05:04
question. I want to thank Representative. And thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Representative Roebuck for bringing us such a nice, short little bill today. But I do have a question. Do the
current rules have a bottom remedial score under which you cannot come to college? Is there a bottom score? Currently,
Speaker 285
2:05:25
no. We're going to actually talk about that a little bit in
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:05:29
the next bill. Okay, so this would not allow the establishment of such a thing.
that's going to take the next
bill to do that? Or would this allow flexibility so that they could do
Speaker 282
2:05:43
that, this bill? It could, I guess. I don't know that we're looking to lower the cut score for remediation. The board has that ability. No, I'm
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:05:54
saying a score beneath which, I mean, as greater accountability comes to higher ed, I mean, if you have, if the cutoff is 19 for ACT, as most schools are, if you have a 10, are we going to say, or a 6?
Is there going to be a point at which we say, you know,
Speaker 289
2:06:15
we just don't think you're there yet? That is in the next bill. Okay.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
2:06:21
That's what I want to say. I apologize. Okay. Representative Stewart. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think also this gives you some flexibility to determine who needs to be remediated, but it gives you some ability to exempt those from remediation by establishing the other criteria. In other words, you may have a 19 on your ACT, but you may have a 3.5 GPA, and we could just say you don't have to take remediation.
Speaker 136
2:06:44
It's certainly a possibility. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair, just to follow up
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:06:49
to Mr. Stewart's question, We've actually been a
part of some work with the Lumina Foundation, the Department of Higher Education has, over the last three years, and that has come out of WICHE, our Western States friends. And this report's been very valuable to Representative Hutchinson and I, as we discussed remediation. It's called Getting Past Go. We've called that to your attention. It's on our higher ed website through the Bureau. But that is exactly what this does.
And thank you, Representative Stewart, for
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
2:07:22
asking that question. Representative Hopper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, too, Representative Roebuck, commend you for what we're trying to achieve here because I can tell you, as I often speak of my other role, there's nothing more challenging or frustrating to sit on the front lines and see those scores and know that the data clearly speaks to those individuals with certain scores that
this probably isn't the best place for that. They need to be pursuing another route to succeed in life. And when you work at an institution with an open door policy sometimes I find that I feel like we're providing false hope and that is challenging. My question is this does this process, have you incorporated in the process an alignment as we look at things academically to line up the financial aid requirements
beside the policy that we're developing. I think I've spoken to this concern before, and I just want to make sure we're not missing that. I think a lot of folks think that we're guiding those decisions at the state level, and most often those rules are made at the federal level, and I just want to make sure we're doing a parallel study. And
Speaker 282
2:08:38
we're getting a little more into the next bill than we are on this one, But if the chair will allow, I'll go ahead and try to address some of that. What our hope is with those students, as Representative Klemmer talked about and you talked about,
right now we've identified we're utilizing in the bill the federal definition of ability to benefit, which is a 15. If you score below a 15 on the ACT, what the next bill will talk about is that in 2012, 12 and 13, those students who score below a 15 will only be able to be enrolled in a specific program that we develop.
As we've talked about it with this issue many times, there's not a magic bullet solution. It's not going to be just one thing that's going to be the trick that resolves the situation. We think it could be several things, and what we wanted to have in talking with the institutions, We have several institutions who are doing some very creative things that are outside the box that I think are going to work and will show they can work. We have some pilot programs going on, Ouachita Tech, ASU, UAEM, a lot of people are doing
the College of the Ouachitas, I apologize, are doing very creative things that we think could be part of a program that allows those students to enter – that want to go to college, But we know their percentage of actually getting something at the end of the day is almost nothing. But puts them on a path. And one thing we've talked about in that development to your question is it has to be designed
where they are able to obtain financial aid and state aid, scholarships if they somehow would qualify for GO or something else, where they're still able to do that. And they're accumulating some type of credit as they go. Back to my earlier point about remediation, when you get nothing, you spend a whole semester and you don't have anything to show for it, your chances go significantly down. So that's part of what we've discussed with the presidents and chancellors is developing
those ideas where you put them on a track that's going to get them to a level. It may mean at the end of the day that they need to go the certificate route. It may mean at the end of the day once they receive. And that's where we want to utilize also the services of adult basic ed and where that meeting is coming in tomorrow because currently you can't be enrolled in both. And so we're working with them to try to change that part too.
But if you can get them in a program, eventually they may be where they could be identified to succeed on a bachelor's level. So that's really kind of the hope here is that we would develop in concert with the institutions, develop a program that would be approved by our board and then implemented for 12 and 13 that would still allow them to get financial aid and be on a track to get some type of credit. MS. Thank you both.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. Okay. Any other questions, Committee? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against for this bill?
none, I have a motion due passed by Mr. Stewart as amended. Correct, Mr. Stewart? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Like sign. I believe the ayes have it. Representative Roebuck, I'm going to let you make a decision and just remember to keep the committee in mind. You have another bill, I know, but remember, we're going to take up at 1 o'clock today in the House. Yes, sir, and Director
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:12:25
Broadway has already really spoken for that bill as well, and And so if you'll look at 2050, if I could proceed, I don't think this will take but just a moment, Mr. Chair.
I do have an amendment to add sponsors. I have an amendment, strictly a sponsor amendment committee. I know you haven't seen it, but take my word. I would entertain a motion. Move, do pass, Mr. Chair. I have a motion, do pass on the amendment. All in favor say
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:12:54
aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed, I believe the ayes have it. Ms. Roebuck, you may proceed. Yes, I'm looking at House Bill 2050. Director Broadway has already really spoken for this bill. If you will look, it does talk about those students on page 3 that score below 15 on the ACT
or a comparable score on another exam, and that they can be reassessed to determine their ability to benefit, and it talks about that that must be a federally approved ability to benefit assessment. It also talks about the start date of 12-13, and if that student does score below that determined ability to benefit assessment score but has a high school diploma or GED may only be enrolled by a two or a four-year in a specific certificate program approved by ADHE Coordinating Board
in collaboration with the institutions of higher education and then that student will have an opportunity to demonstrate academic
proficiency and can move on to a degree program. So this answers a lot of the
Speaker 116
2:13:56
questions, Mr. Chair, that we had earlier. Thank
Speaker 260
2:14:01
you. Committee, any additional questions? Representative Steele. At the danger
Speaker 273
2:14:07
of getting something thrown at. Go ahead. Me, that is. Okay. You go right ahead. Senator
Speaker 223
2:14:16
Broadway, where exactly are the opportunities for those individuals who score below this 15 percent
Speaker 260
2:14:23
to be actually identified early in the educational process and put maybe in a separate track? If that track is technical, if that track is going in a completely different direction, and I ask that question because remediation is one thing, but lack of
Speaker 224
2:14:46
adequate attention early on, attention from guidance counselors, attention during the high school years even about a student's performance and capability,
Speaker 260
2:14:58
That's a problem that I think that I'm just not seeing adequately addressed in these issues as we deal with remediation. We're
Speaker 224
2:15:08
remediating them for what, basically, is my question. To one point, and it's a bill that was in here
Speaker 282
2:15:16
last week, the one I mentioned earlier in terms of our work with ADE, the CPAP bill that Representative Roebuck has, and it passed the floor yesterday and I'm sure that there's a lot more detail to go into in
regards to that but that is where representative still identifying those students at the eighth grade level when they take the Explorer and at the tenth grade level when they take the plan identifying those students who are likely to require some type of remediation and putting them on a path working with the institutions and some of this still has to be developed but But there's a great model, actually, to follow that is in Arkadelphia, where they take those students and put them on that path.
And that includes more counseling, career work with those students. And that's kind of what we're doing one of these days. I hope I get the chance to talk to the committee about our career coaches initiative that was initiated by the governor last year, where we're focused on the state's 21 poorest counties and where we've seen a huge impact in terms of the number of financial aid applications just in one year. By working and doing those things, we've all talked about counselors being too busy to do what we thought they were supposed to be doing
because they're doing a lot of other things that we've assigned to them over the years. These career coaches are doing just exactly what you're talking about, Representative Steele, and that is talking to them about opportunities, the likelihood of them being able to go on a certain route, the importance of, you know, whether it's a certificate to be a plumber or a welder. But in terms of splitting off in tracks, I think that's something we got away from several years ago in terms of you put one student on one track or the other.
But obviously trying to influence a student in terms of what their real opportunities are going to be are something we're trying to utilize with those career coaches and with this bill, the bill
Speaker 223
2:17:20
that was here last week. Right, but in too many schools, it academically segregates the kids
Speaker 260
2:17:25
in the school when they're put in that model and say, well, you're going to be
Speaker 224
2:17:32
in this more technical field that we don't see that you have the academic performance.
It's kind of like a school in my district that everybody's heard of, Central High. If you've seen the documentary, I've seen the documentary, and in real life, you have two levels. You have the kids on the second level, the second level physically, who are all AP students, those are the ones you hear about. And then you have the kids on the first level, and these are the kids who are basically they're wasting their time. There are not enough opportunities like the Metro School here in Little Rock
that are really challenging them. It's kind of like, okay, we're going to push these kids who are taking the AP courses and are doing well, but these other kids, because they have been identified for a certain track and they didn't do as well on the test, then we're basically going to allow them just to be in school for babysitting purposes only. That's kind of where we're at. That's the issue that really needs to be addressed.
My other concern is that on 15, with the CSET program, 15 at the eighth grade level, So with no training on test-taking skills, I think is a major issue at that level with the maturity that some of our kids have. Some are very mature. Some are not. Some are not even doing their best. I've talked to kids at the eighth grade level, and I mentioned earlier to Dr. Kimbrough, some didn't know they were taking the test. Some played games with the test.
There's too many of them at that level just don't know that this is something serious. and I see the direction you're trying to go in, but I just at every opportunity have
Speaker 263
2:19:19
to speak for those kids who may be left behind because there are way too many of
Speaker 144
2:19:24
them. I agree. I don't disagree with that. And in terms of I used to do Christmas trees on
Speaker 199
2:19:30
those tests, by the way. I heard that, Dr. Kimbrell. Don't say that too many. Yeah,
Speaker 282
2:19:39
I know. But I do think what you're saying is important,
And I'm stepping kind of out of my role in higher ed, back to being a former legislator, I guess, on the K-12 side. We do have to reach back in to get those kids and identify the opportunities, whether it's a secondary career center like you talked about with Metro. It's been years since funds have been put into those types of programs through career ed that offer those other opportunities. I've always said they can be combined with several districts going together. We've got some great examples of that happening around the state. But that's part of that career ed track that they need to be offered that opportunity
because, just like I always say, you try to find a plumber really fast anytime lately, you can't do it. We have a number of skills that are needed in terms of our workforce that we've got to encourage kids that you don't have to, and sometimes when I say this, some are going to disagree, degree, you don't have to have a bachelor's degree to have a good life. There are a number of opportunities in the workforce that are going to pay you a great wage and offer you a great opportunity.
And that's part of the culture. I think we all, as a group, have to work on in terms of explaining to students the opportunities that are out there for them if they'll take advantage of them. But I agree with you, and I
Speaker 260
2:21:03
applaud you for continuing to point that out. Just one more point. You don't have to have that, but you should be afforded the same vigor and the same type of education that an honor roll student receives and not just be kind of left out there to flounder. I apologize, Ms. Chairman of the Committee, but I hope we have more time, even this part
Speaker 224
2:21:23
of the session, as these remediation bills come up. Very important.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:21:28
Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, if I could just real quickly, Representative Steele, there are actually four bills that address your
issue. Mr. Chair actually passed a bill out that dealt with career college readiness standards out of this committee, and it's already out of the House. I don't know where it is in the Senate. Then we had the CPAP bill that came out yesterday, and then these two bills. So I'll be glad to show you how they all interconnect to do exactly what you're talking about. Thank
Speaker 89
2:21:53
you. Mr. Brown, do you have a motion?
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
2:21:56
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do have a motion. I have two motions, in fact. First motion is that we've heard plenty of good discussion on this, and I ask for immediate consideration and then upon the completion of that i move that we adjourn i will accept one motion mr brown the consideration all
in favor of on 2052 2050 all those in favor say aye opposed leave the ayes have it as amended as amended now the only other thing that we're going to address right now is miss roebuck has two
concurrences, House Bill 1433. Move adoption, Mr. Chair. Bill 1772. We need to do those separate marks. Yes, we need to get a
motion and vote on it. I need a
motion on the House Bill 1433. Move adoption. Mark's keeping me straight up here. We really need a vote on
Speaker 301
2:22:56
House Bill 2050 by Mr. Stewart. And motion
do pass as amended. That's correct. Correct motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The
ayes have it. Now we're taking the two concurrent bills that Representative Roebuck has. House Bill 1433. Need a motion? Move adoption. Move
adoption. We have a second. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Like sign. House Bill 1772. Move adoption. Have a motion for adoption. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? I believe the ayes have it.
Thank you, committee, for your diligence, and next Thursday we'll have lunch brought in. We will adjourn, but we will reconvene during the House Assembly.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1435
SB892
SB648
HB1819
HB2125
HB1937
HB2032
HB2050
HB1433
HB1772
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham Chair
Unverified
Speaker 9
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Representative Jerry R. Brown
Unverified
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 77
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 79
Speaker 107
Speaker 113
Bob Mccleskey
Unverified
Speaker 121
Speaker 122
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
Speaker 52
Speaker 126
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 111
Speaker 143
Speaker 72
Speaker 147
Speaker 151
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 161
Speaker 162
Speaker 87
Gene Sayer
Unverified
Speaker 178
Speaker 179
Speaker 186
Speaker 190
Speaker 191
Speaker 194
Speaker 195
Speaker 83
Senator David Johnson
Unverified
Jennifer Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 91
Representative Tommy Wren
Unverified
Speaker 201
Speaker 211
Speaker 217
Speaker 219
Speaker 223
Speaker 224
Speaker 225
Speaker 54
Speaker 234
Cassandra Kirby
Unverified
Speaker 239
Speaker 243
Speaker 212
Speaker 139
Speaker 246
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Speaker 250
Speaker 252
Speaker 58
Speaker 257
Speaker 260
Speaker 262
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 282
Speaker 285
Speaker 289
Speaker 136
Speaker 116
Speaker 273
Speaker 263
Speaker 144
Speaker 199
Speaker 89
Speaker 301